Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign

There is a clear guideline on Wikipedia about the use of the word Terrorism. Please read it before editing.

• Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter

April 2006 Discussion

"official IRA policy" to not attack other "celtic" countries (scotland,wales) we need a citation

dont see how to edit references #27, the source for my change is: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch97.htm

CAIN has 1 British Army fatality, the last in current round of conflict, on 12/2/1997, 1 RUC fulltime, and 1 RUC reserve shot dead by PIRA on 13/6/1997.

No civilian death from PIRA, RIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO etc., (excluding Billy Wright shot 27/12, Glen Greer dead in premature explosion at loyalist weapons dump 25/10, and the attack on Desmond Christopher Moonan 14/8 unattributed in court). http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FE7EE0D2-3D1E-4016-B386-8396FD271C55/0/j_j_NICE3182.htm

the civilian death attributed to loyalists;

1. 14/03/1997 - John Slane
2. 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
3. 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
4. 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
5. 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
6. 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
7. 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
8. 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin
9. 24/07/1997 - James Morgan
10. 01/08/1997 - Stewart Hunter
11. 08/11/1997 - Robert Kerr (loyalist)
12. 09/11/1997 - Raymond McCord
13. 05/12/1997 - Gerry Devlin
14. 27/12/1997 - Seamus Dillon (republican)
15. 31/12/1997 - Eddie Traynor

Fluffy999 22:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You should be counting 1996 as well as 1997. Two civilians killed in Canary Wharf bomb in Feb 96. One Brit army killed in bomb attack on Thiepval barracks Jdorney 16:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I took it to be indicating the year of the ceasefire.

"From December 1995 until July 1997, the Provisional IRA called off its 1994 ceasefire because of its dissatisfaction with the state of negotiations. However its campaign IN THIS YEAR never reached the intensity of that before the ceasefire it killed 2 British soldiers, 2 RUC men and 2 civilians, [28]"

What year? If its indicating a toll for December 1995 until July 1997 then its not a year and the figures given are wrong also. I will check the reference to see what context Ed Moloney, The Secret History of the IRA is cited.

Fluffy999 22:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It was 19 month period and not a year. Jan 96 -July 97.

Jdorney 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the PIRA ceasefire ended on Friday 09/02/1996 not "December 1995" or Jan 96. It was renewed again on 20/07/1997.

PIRA Statement ending Ceasefire http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/ira9296.htm

Figures for PIRA fatalities 9/2/1996 - 20/7/1997 are:

1. 2 civilians 9th Feb. (excluding DAAD shooting Sean Devlin 06/09/1996 & 1996 INLA feud)
2. 2 british army 11/10/96 & 12/2/1997
3. 1 Garda - McCabe 7th June 1996
4. 2 RUC - 13/6/1997

during same period the figures for loyalist fatalities are:

1. 21/06/1996 - Gareth Parker
2. 07/07/1996 - Michael McGoldrick
3. 12/09/1996 - Michael Whelan
4. 14/03/1997 - John Slane
5. 24/03/1997 - David Templeton
6. 08/05/1997 - Robert Hamill
7. 12/05/1997 - Sean Brown
8. 01/06/1997 - Gregory Taylor (RUC)
9. 11/06/1997 - Robert 'Basher' Bates (loyalist)
10. 07/07/1997 - Brian Morton (loyalist)
11. 15/07/1997 - Bernadette Martin

Its sloppy. I will clear up the sentence so its clearer.

Sounds good.

Jdorney 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Early Campaign 1970-1980

"As the conflict escalated in the early 1970s, the numbers recruited by the IRA mushroomed, in response to the nationalist community's anger at events such as the introduction of internment without trial and Bloody Sunday (1972) when the Parachute Regiment of the British army shot dead 13 unarmed civil rights marchers in Derry. The IRA leadership took the opportunity to launch an offensive, believing that they could force a British withdrawal from Ireland by inflicting severe casualties, thus undermining public support in Britain for its continued presence."

Just a minor note given that this is supposed to be an unbiased source of information, it has always been claimed by the soldiers involved that they were fired upon first and members of the crowd were armed, this was corroborated by an IRA defector. The Republicans on the other hand have claimed that it was an unprovoked attack on unarmed civilians; since neither side’s story has been proved it seems unfair to report one version as fact. It should also be noted that much of this article seems to be slightly biased in favour of the Republican movement, and I would generally ur on the side of impartiality as much as possible.

Very good point about what the soldiers say about events- its ok to enter anything to that effect so long as its cited, see also the Bloody Sunday articles. It is possible it is biased towards the RM, but when you see POV you can correct/remove, flag it up as POV, or introduce the other side of the story to balance the POV. There is one thing to remember though- this is an article about a specific group and how they saw the events, how it influenced them. It is perfectly valid to say the PIRA used bloody sunday as a propaganda recruiting tool. They make reference to exploiting such mistakes in the green book.

Details on British military & Intelligence operations or their campaign/role is missing in all the articles unfortunately. Could be due to space or people subconciously dont even consider them as "players" instead treating them as "stuck in the middle". Some military ops are mentioned here and there- Motorman / Mincemeat but huge security operations like Monarch & Hawk arent found anywhere- that entire period in the 1970s is a bit of a blackhole so far. I hope to get around to writing something on that soon. Fluffy999 11:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tribunal, as far as I'm aware, found that the only shots fired from the nationalist side on Bloody Sunday were revolver shots fired by an Official IRA, after the British troops had opened fire.

Fluffy, re expanding the article, remember that there are space constraints and that this article is actually too long already. Only the most important events and trends should be mentioned. Jdorney 17:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Right, its an overview sort of thing not a chronicle, but im thinking of some articles that complement this articles. The new ones would focus on british army operations etc. that can be referred to in this one. Its the way the PIRA article works with the PIRA Arms importation article now. Fluffy999 18:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Its interesting that you think that this article is bit too pro republican and the main article is too anti-republican. Originally they were the same article, but had to be split up for space reasons (a lot of both written by me). Perhaps the balance in both articles was lost to some extent as a result? Btw, I wouldn't spend much time worrying about Devin79. I'm just amazed he's not banned yet.

Jdorney 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You did a great job. I'm not calling you a PIRA supporter :) Its not biased one way or the other, its very close to neutralPOV. However Ive a nagging feeling that some components are not touched on- the British military. In particular counter intelligence, surveillance, introduction of various military hardware, budgets, changes to infrastructure (civilian searchers/checkpoints/metal detectors), propaganda, informers etc.

It is my POV, but im of the view that how the PIRA prosecuted their campaign was influenced more by the reaction and methods used against than it was down to their strategic decisions. Thats POV though. To avoid making that analysis on wikipedia an article on those developments and their chronology would probably work. Then people can compare the two and make their own minds up. As it stands it just looks like the PIRA was out there "2 sheets to the wind" doing what it wanted. Just an idea, will see how I get on with it. Fluffy999 09:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting point and probably correct to some extent. I don't know enough about the British side of things to go into, so good luck! A good place to start though would be Peter Taylor's "Brits", the book and the tv documentary series. Actually all of Taylor's stuff is very good for research purposes. Jdorney 14:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement, I will check that out. Fluffy999 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities

Its an interesting point that there have been few IRA related fatalities in recent years, this is mainly due to the IRA calling ambulances prior to drilling out peoples knee caps or punishment beatings. This insures that the person in question won't die of blood loss etc. and hence they won't have violated the various agreements.

Latest edits

I've removed the latest edits by Devin79, who as usual is inventing facts and pushing his own pov. I'm tired of giving explanations for having to do this by now (see the Provisional IRA article's tak), but just as yet another example of what he's up to, he cliams that Richard English's "Armed truggle says on page 271 that the IRA killed 86 loyalists. One page 271 of my edition, (Macmillan 2003), English describes the Downing Street declaration of 1993 and doesn't discuss casualties of any kind. Jdorney 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

10 August 2006 reversion

An anonymous editor seems to have restored an earlier version of the article without explanation. In so doing, s/he has restored numerous typographical errors and eliminated numerous changes that had been made to bring the article into line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If the editor has a problem with particular content changes, s/he should raise those issues here. A block-revert is not acceptable. Ground Zero | t 11:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Contradictions between the claim of a Tet Offensive, the Long War and the Armalite and Ballot box Strategies

I think the section about Moloney's claims about a supposed Tet Offensive are disputed by other sources like Gherarty, Taylor, and Toby Harnden. They point to the generally accepted idea of the PIRA waging an Attrition war since their failure to bring UK Government to the bargain table by 1972. The Libyan supplies certainly had the value, as describe in this article, to hone the Republican war machine in order to sustain a significant level of activity for the forseeable future, but assuming that further reinforcements may have allowed the Provos to launch a wide military escalation is a matter of discussion. The claim that the uncovering of the Libya connection disrupted a large change in the Republican strategy seems also to contradict some UK intelligence reports. Indeed, there was a PIRA document retrieved by the British Security in 1982, where the Army Council acknowledged outright, based in the Falklands war experience, that there were no chances of defeating or even facing the BA in open battle (SoF Magazine article, February 1997: From who the Belfat polls, by Dr. Tom Marks, p. 67). I believe that the section must be revised. DagosNavy 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Ed Moloney had the best contacts of any current author within the PIRA. He quotes directly from IRA sources on the Tet offensive Moreover, the general thrust of the arguement, that the IRA were planning a major escalation that never really came ot pass is supported in many other sources. Eg Brendan O'Brien, Long War p135, "In Northern Ireland RUC informants were reporting talk among the IRA units of a coming major escalation and of ‘victory ‘86’"... "The IRA Army Council was confident that...victory could once more be brought into sight". Mallie, Bishop (page 450), IRA New Years day message 1987, "we promise tangible success in the war of national liberation in the coming year". See dissident republicans repeating it here [1] see 1984 entry. Jdorney 15:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Coolaville etc

i don't think this inciedent is worthy of inclusion here. What appears to have happend is that the South Armagh IRA took over the village, ie put up checkpoints for about two hours, then left. In the context of a short article about a 30 year conflict, I do not feel this is worth mentioning.

Moreover, the parliamentary debates, in the context of a debate on the continued use of the Special Powers Act cetrainly do not reflect that this meant the rgion was "close to breaking point", on the contrary,

"The hon. Member for Mossley Hill was rather too gloomy when he said that life is livable in Northern Ireland. It is a great deal more than that. A great deal of life in Northern Ireland is very good and for many people life is normal. Their spirit is remarkable, but their life, jobs and prosperity are better than some would have us believe. I do not want the message to go out that all is gloom there because as far as I am concerned it is certainly not".

I also have to question why so many small details are put in about the 1990s, when this decade was far less bloody than, for example, the early 1970s.

Jdorney 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jdorney. There are two reason two include so many small details about the 1990s. In first place, you can read the second paragraph of the article: This article aims to provide details of this campaign, so I guess any detail about the PIRA's actions should be welcome there. The second reason is that the '90s were the defining moments of the troubles, since they ended up in the Downing Street declaration, the first PIRA ceasefire and the start of the Peace Process. In the other hand, I think that incidents like the Baltic exchange or the Bishopsgate in London were not small details for the British government, since both of them costed almost £1.5bn, leading to a crisis in the UK insurance market. If you add the cost of further bombings after the first cease-fire was broken (such as Canary Wharf and Manchester), the amount reaches £2bn. The almost forgotten attack on RFA “Fort Victoria” delayed the commissioning of a £130mn naval ship for three years; I wouldn’t called this a small detail, but a catastrophic security breach . The Cullaville incident is also worth of mentioning since it exposed the vulnerability of the expensive electronic surveillance system deployed by the UK along the border. Imagine, for example, the embarrassment in the Pentagon given the case of the Iraqi insurgency taking over for some time a building or a main street in the so called “green zone” of Baghdad. While I modified the somewhat confusing line mentioning the “breaking point”, what I wanted to mean by that was that the 25 years old situation was becoming unbearable to the government in London, both in political and financial terms. As a proof, read the words of John Major in the Commons, minutes after the Downing Street Declaration was signed, already cited in the article:

• “For the past 25 years, the people of Northern Ireland have suffered levels of violence that any civilized community would find intolerable. No community, and especially no part of the United Kingdom, should have to endure the murder and destruction that have afflicted the Province. That is why successive British Governments have sought to find a solution to these terrible problems.”

Pointing out to the issue of the death toll, which certainly dropped sharply from the 1970s, it still represented a serious and painful problem in the view of the public opinion. See this statement by the First Minister in the course of an exchange with Ian Paisley:

• “I must say to the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of the agreement and the document is to make sure that, 25 years from now, his successor does not sit there saying that to the Prime Minister of the day. I wish to take action to make sure that there is no more bloodshed of that sort and no more coffins carried away week after week after week because politicians do not have the courage to sit down, address the problem and find a way through. I am prepared to do that. If the hon. Gentleman believes that I should not, he does not understand the responsibilities of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.” (The italics are mine. I saw that debate by television and this is the exact transcription of his words).

The statements of Major reflect what I have in mind when I wrote about “reaching the breaking point”: the frustration came not from the intensity, but from the persistence of violence. Also, if you check different chronologies of events in NI during 1994 (the PIRA cease-fire took place August 31), you will find that there was at least one serious incident (assassination, bombing, arson, mortar attack or shooting) each day, not counting kneecappings or punishment beatings. So, the life in Ulster, even if “livable”, was still far away from being a normal one (you can browse CAIN chronology or click on the following link).

DagosNavy 23:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly life was not "normal" in NI at that time. Clearly also the bombing of london is worthy of mention. However, the specific point about the Coolaville indcdent is that the IRA did this all the time in various places throughout the troubles. So did the loyalists for that matter. An analogy between Iraq and south Armagh would not be the green zone, but somewhere like Tikrit, or part of the Sunni triangle, where it was risky for teh US, or this case, UK troops to enter.

Re the peace process, certainly the UK government wanted a settlement. However, this had been on the table since the mid 1970s. The real change in the 1990s was the IRA's attitude to ceasefires and alling off their armed ampaign.

Jdorney 06:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Dubious Tag

The assertion in question pre-supposes a shoot-to-kill policy and that this was used in that particular instanceWeggie 18:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Added to Guerilla warfare

unsuccessful campaigns along with campaigns by IRA. Fluffy999 12:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Activities

I re-wrote it (again) after seeing how much partisan bumpf had been inserted and how description of their activities had been skewed to serve political points. Remark here if theres an issue. Fluffy999 15:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for inserting the word "terrorist" and removing "guerilla war" as I knew they would be reverted almost straight away. I find it hard to understand why the word terrorist is not allowed. It never has been a "guerilla war" in Northern Ireland but most certainly was a terrorist campaign (especially on the mainland). I realise that the only POV allowed when discussing the IRA is the POV that they aren't terrorists. I am also aware that on Wikipedia POV is not allowed, what is allowed is something called "consensus" which means if enough people say things happened one way then that is what happened. I really hope future generations don't refer to Wikipedia for for historical analysis of key events, as they will just encounter propoganda. Cornisle 11:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)cornisle

Cornise, the use of the word terrorist is POV, who decides who is or isn't a terrorist, guerilla war lets the reader decide on wether the IRA were terrorists or not. Articles on wikipedia are supposed to represent verifible fact, not the opinion of the editors that edit the article.--padraig 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Padraig, I have to disagree. Common sense should dictate that the IRA campaign in NI and the UK mainland was a terrorist campaign. Reading a lot of the articles on Wikipedia regarding NI I have come to realise that Wikipedia isn't neutral at all. Very disappointing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.147.52 (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

By "neutral" I assume you mean "British point of view". Reuters aren't particularly neutral by your standards either, so perhaps it's you that's not neutral? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. "Guerilla war" is completly wrong by the way. And it is extremely POV. I know I'll never win this argument so I'll quit now. It's sad though. Wikipedia really is a bad source of reference for so many subjects that get hijacked by those wishing to rewrite history. Cornisle 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Poster at the top

I do not feel that the poster at the top of the page is at all appropriate. It has an overtly POV message. I believe that its usage can be justified within the body of the article but to lead the whole article with it gives the impression that the article is supportive of the message that the poster contains, before reading a single word of the article. Jooler 23:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[post deleted 07:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)]

[post edited following deletion of previous post 11:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)]

Jooler, can you suggest an appropriate alternative image to go at the top, if the poster was moved to the body of the article? Scolaire 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Irish_Wikipedians' notice board#Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 Jooler 12:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but do you know of such an image in Wikipedia/Wikimedia? Scolaire 13:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

A suitable image has now been uploaded, so it's all good. Scolaire 09:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Image added per this discussion here.--Domer48_'fenian' 07:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sentence removed

For the IRA, such attacks may have been counter-productive, as incidents such as these facilitated the British Government's aims to "criminalise" the IRA and portray the conflict as one between sectarian gangs, and itself as a neutral arbiter.

Unsourced since February, so time for it to go. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Robberies and criminal enterprise section

I'm thinking this section has problems. For example near the end it reads "The proceeds of the Provisional IRA's past criminal enterprises are largely thought to have been invested in property and business ventures", which is true but only to an extent and not the way it reads now. The section seems to be combining two slightly related subjects:

• Armed robberies, kidnappings and other activities (such as the running of black taxis etc) that were used to raise funds for the IRA.
• Smuggling (except for materiel) and the like was generally done by IRA members (naming no names, but particularly based around the border region) but wasn't done to raise funds for the IRA, but for people's personal profit and it's them that are generally being investigated for their investments.

Any thoughts on the best way to sort this out? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Stop lying. PIRA made huge sums of money from the smuggling of fuel, livestock and drugs and it was "officially" sanctioned at "Army Council" level.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Undefeated.jpg

Image:Undefeated.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added on February 13.DagosNavy 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-devestation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg

Image:Manchesterbomb-truck.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg

Image:MortarTest-1994.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Citation requests

Could editors please think clearly about what they wish to achieve before adding frivolous cite requests? I understand for example TUs point that "there was some activity after 1997" but the correct way to deal with this is to add a qualifying sentence along the lines of "the PIRA were blamed / admitted doing X, Y and Z after 1997." Asking for proof that there was actually a campaign in the years 1969 to 1997 is almost as ridiculous as having "water is wet" in an article. Valenciano (talk) 11:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It might have seemed clear-cut in the 1970s, but it is very debatable in 2008, Valenciano. The overview by Anthony McIntyre, an IRA commander who served 18 years in jail for his activities in the campaign, is summarised by Liam Clarke in today's Sunday Times as -

McIntyre paints a picture of a republican leadership who were reformists from the outset, being secretly protected, groomed and eventually steered into Stormont by the British forces that they claimed to be fighting. All the while, a supine membership cheered them on from the sidelines, easily fooled by symbolism and rhetoric.86.42.216.147 (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Three problems with that, Whoeveryouare: one, Anthony McIntyre is about as reliable as Hans Christian Andersen; two, the Sunday Times is about as reliable as Hans Christian Andersen; and three, none of what you say alters the fact that there was an IRA military campaign between 1969 and 1997. Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Censorship re. terrorism

How can any reasonable person deny that the PIRA "conducted an armed campaign including terrorist activities"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of a "guerilla war"? Mooretwin (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See WP:TERRORIST. Rockpocket 00:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't explain "guerilla war". It seems incredible that the adjective "terrorist" is banned when describing such activities as happened in Northern Ireland. I'll insert "paramilitary" instead. Mooretwin (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, "A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military force, but which are not regarded as having the same status." Sounds much better. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh sure. Because professional military forces regularly blow off teenagers' kneecaps and detonate IEDs in crowded shopping centres while claiming unemployment benefit from the state they claim to be fighting.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My Removal

According to this which states Although a claim of responsibility was made by the ‘‘Kilburn Battalion of the IRA,’’ this incident is not usually considered to be part of a coordinated IRA campaign. The bomber (or bombers) was never formally identified. BigDunc^Talk 20:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

News Section

Having had a look at the article, I feel we need a new section. At the moment we have a relatively short piece on 1970-1980. In reality this glosses over at least two distinct phases in the provos campaign. You have the early 1970s, by far the most intense period, the ceasefire of the mid 70s and then teh beginnings of the 'long war' in the late 70s.

I would suggest that we need considerably detail on the early more period. Thoughts anyone?Jdorney (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Civilians killed

I was trying to make the infobox make more sense, and ran into a slight problem. CAIN cross tables (first variable Status, second variable Organisation) returns 497 civilians killed by the IRA, plus 19 civilian politican activists, making 518.

However this part of CAIN returns a different figure. 152 were "Unintended Targets", 112 died in "Bomb attacks on commercial property" (note, I am subtracting the 103 IRA members killed during those from the given total, as obviously they aren't civilians), 34 were "Civilians working for British Forces", 133 were "Sectarian killings of Protestant civilians", 46 were "Civilians in Britain", 15 were "British 'VIPs'", 9 were "Unionist / Loyalist Politicians", 8 were "Northern Ireland Judiciary" (the last three I cannot see any classification on CAIN they would come under apart from civilian), 23 were "Alleged criminals and drug dealers", and 21 out of the 29 "Others" were civilians. Which gives a total of 553. The Casulaties section which is supposedly sourced by the second link says 621 civilians though. So any idea on what figure we should put for CAIN in the infobox and that section? O Fenian (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Very confusing - note the total IRA killings in the second link is given as 1,823 but in the first table as 1,708. Maybe the second link uses a wider definition of IRA? To confuse matters further, Lost Lives gives 636 as the figure for civilians killed by (P)IRA up to 1999 (p. 1484, 2000 edition).

After checking more, it does say "Irish Republican Army (IRA) has killed 1,823. This total includes 86 killings marked as 'Republican' (or 'non-specific Republican group') in the text which occurred from 1970 onwards.", which would account for a discrepency of 86..but not 115! Any idea on what we should put in the article and infobox then? Lost Lives is already mentioned in the article as an alternate figured to CAIN. O Fenian (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My edition of Lost Lives only goes up to 2000, but there are more recent editions which should have more up-to-date figures. It's difficult because for some of the killings, there is some doubt over the perpetrators, and different authors may have attributed them differently. e.g. Are the DAAD and CRF killings attributed to PIRA - or "republican" killings as you say. Robert McCartney? Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think it's important to define what is meant by civilian as most authors exclude civilian occupations such as prison officer and police officer, and even exclude people who were retired from the armed forces. Paramilitaries are not included as civilians either, even though in the literal and usual sense they were. Mooretwin (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think we are better off sticking with the first table? Even with that there are several cases on CAIN where the IRA are believed to be responsible, but the recent book by John Black (a loyalist who was supposedly trained by the MRF, undercover British Army unit) states that loyalists were responsible for several deaths that the IRA were blamed for. The numbers to vary from person to person, that much is true. The CRF was largely an INLA covername through wasn't it? O Fenian (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would need a health warning and possibly worth quoting Lost Lives too and saying that authors differ on how deaths are attributed. (PS. In case you haven't heard a policeman has been murdered tonight in Craigavon.) Good night. Mooretwin (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I heard :( O Fenian (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about (and it's too early to work out the exact figures involved) in the main body we include both sets of CAIN figures (and Lost Lives too), the second one with a caveat of something like "These revised figures include some killings initially attributed to groups other than the IRA"? All three sets of figures get a breakdown by status, then we can put a minimum to maximum total in the infobox? And we should keep the CAIN and Lost Lives definition of civilian, which excludes paramilitaries, RUC and prison officers. If you want to class paramilitaries as civilians do not forget that applies to who the British Army killed, so the SAS would have killed nine civilians at Loughgall in 1987! ;) O Fenian (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

How about (and it's too early to work out the exact figures involved) in the main body we include both sets of CAIN figures (and Lost Lives too), the second one with a caveat of something like "These revised figures include some killings initially attributed to groups other than the IRA"? All three sets of figures get a breakdown by status, then we can put a minimum to maximum total in the infobox? - Agreed. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And we should keep the CAIN and Lost Lives definition of civilian, which excludes paramilitaries, RUC and prison officers. - Yes, I agree, but what I am saying is that we should explain how the sources have defined the categories so that it is clear to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to class paramilitaries as civilians do not forget that applies to who the British Army killed, so the SAS would have killed nine civilians at Loughgall in 1987! - well, yes, obviously. As I said above: Paramilitaries are not included as civilians either, even though in the literal and usual sense they were. Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In the Sectarian violence section...

Hello All, in the sectarian Violence section, the passage "... a campaign of sectarian assassination. Vincent McKenna, (later convicted of a paedophile offense)..." should be edited. While it is disgusting what Vincent McKenna did, the pedophile offense has no bearing on the topic being discussed and is in fact a fallacy known as a red herring. Rollo Bay 1758 (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Assessed as start class for Mil History. Some sections need more citations. Also, throughout the article PIRA and IRA interchangeably. This should, IMO, be PIRA throughout.--dashiellx (talk) 14:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 → Provisional Irish Republican Army campaign 1969–1997 — Per main article — —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Page Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997 is fully protected and therefore likely controversial. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The subject of the article is the dates 1969-1997, and IRA should be abbreviated. This is done all the time in professional sports, for example, we have the National Basketball Association, but the 2009–10 NBA season, as the article is about those dates of the NBA, not about the NBA in general. 199.125.109.138 (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Short reason the title is ok and manageable no need to make it longer. BigDunc 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

civilians killed

I see that there is disagreement on the precise number of civilians killed by the P.IRA, but it's crazy that the infobox doesn't mention this at all. Would it not be better to give a range of figures, rather than none?

Should civilians killed by the British Army also be included? I would consider this fair, given that this page is a history of conflict, or an aspect of it, not only of the IRA.

Jdorney (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Libyan compo deal 2010

Though the article ends in 1997 I've added a one-liner at the end of the "Libyan arms" section, on the $2 billion deal under way. It must pass notability and is a kind of full stop. Let's see how it develops.Red Hurley (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation request since July 2009

We have a number of citation request tags dated July 2009, 1 year ago. Since citations have not been forthcoming in this long time, do we feel it is time to remove the unreferenced text? --BwB (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Added one source although i dont think it was a 2009 tagged one. Another citation tag is for the..

"Reportedly, Gadaffi donated enough weapons to arm the equivalent of three infantry battalions."

On another wiki page it says.. : "In the 1980s, the IRA secured larger quantities of weapons and explosives from Gaddafi's Libya — enough to supply at least two infantry battalions." and that one is sourced. [2] So i dont know if it should be changed to say that instead. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I see there are a couple from April 2009 too, no problem with all the unsourced material with a 2009 tag being removed if no one adds them soon. Leave the recent 2010 ones though. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

"The IRA had split in December 1969 into the Provisional IRA and Official IRA factions - leading to the burning of many Catholic homes during the Battle of the Bogside in Derry". If you cannot edit properly Bigweeboy, please do not bother editing at all. O Fenian (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What was it I did wrong? I removed unreferenced material. What was improper here? --BwB (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the sentence that was left after your edit? How does it make any sense at all? O Fenian (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see my mistake. Your edit was what I wanted to do, but somehow messed up. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. You might have been a bit more polite in you approach, thought OF. --BwB (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of pictures

I have started a discussion on images of pictures at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army#Images of pictures. --Scolaire (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

McCartney

I've removed, ideally temporarily, the sentence mentioning him as I can't figure out the best way to phrase it currently. It read:

Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised, the murder of Robert McCartney, being the last known example

This doesn't make sense at all. Nobody disagrees that the murder of Robert McCartney was an argument that got out of hand in a pub and was carried out by IRA volunteers (and further volunteers involved in the clean-up to destroy forensic evidence). So I don't see how it fits into the whole "Members of the Provisional IRA have often been linked to killings and crimes which the Provisional IRA denies it authorised", since nobody is claiming the IRA authorised it in advance. Obviously it needs to be in the article but I'm having a brain spasm and can't figure out if we need two totally separate sentences that make different points or something, but that sentence was a no-go. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe PIRA didn't authorise it, but by sending more terrorists to clean up the evidence, and thereby perverting the course of justice, they clearly condoned it. If they disapproved of McCartney's murder they would have handed the murderers over to the RUC instead of covering up for them.--FergusM1970 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Unarmed"

I don't think it is necessary to note, for example, that the victims in Birmingham were "unarmed"; firearms are a rarity in the mainland UK. In the one example where it might have added something, it is already noted that the soldiers were part of a ceremonial occasion in which they would not expect to be armed. Does anyone disagree? --John (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'm trying to maintain consistency here. If it's relevant to add "unarmed" to victims of the British security forces it seems equally relevant to add it to victims of PIRA, agreed?--FergusM1970 (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No. It's part of a disruptive point making crusade following this, where the editor concerned argues that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were not unarmed. He does this by making up a definition of "unarmed" that suits his purpose", then concluding that the presence of a car bomb 80km away from the place where three IRA volunteers were shot dead means they were actually "in control of a weapon" despite the dozens, if not hundreds, of reliable sources saying they were indeed unarmed. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 21:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, no need to add for victims of bombings in England. Support retaining for people shot by the British Army/RUC as they would often claim that they had shot people who were presenting a threat - it is notable if the Security Forces shot an unarmed person. GiollaUidir (talk) 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Use of Irish flag for PIRA

PIRA is not an agency of the Irish state - indeed it's a banned terrorist organisation there - so I don't believe the Irish flag should be used as their emblem. Is there a specific PIRA emblem we could use instead? Perhaps the fist and Armalite logo, or a black taxi stuffed with drugs and protection money?--FergusM1970 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed here, moral and legal concerns against the sourced use of the tricolour by the IRA are irrelevant for Wikipedia per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the file used for the IRA and other republican organizations () is not the same file used for the Republic of Ireland () per 2009 consensus.--Darius (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what? The use of the Irish tricolour by an organisation which is BANNED IN IRELAND is irrelevant how, exactly?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, take time to read the links above. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if the use of the Irish flag by terrorist groups was discussed, but no concensus was reached. I see your point, but as PIRA is an illegal terrorist organisation in Ireland the use of the Irish flag as a PIRA symbol seems to be stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR is an official Wikipedia policy, thus it doesn't matter if you find the use of the tricolour "stupid, deliberately offensive and wrong". The nazi flag is also BANNED IN GERMANY and we make use of it here per that policy.--Darius (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Nazi flag was the emblem of Nazi Germany. The Irish tricolour is the emblem of Ireland, NOT the emblem of PIRA. Do I really need to explain the difference?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Do I really need to explain the difference between Wikipedia policies and moral or legal concerns again??--Darius (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. You just have to explain why the use of the Irish flag as a symbol for an organisation that's illegal in Ireland is appropriate. That will do fine.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is Wikipedia, not an online forum. The flag is appropiate here in WP because an overwhelming number of sources mention its use by the PIRA (WP:V) and because we can't supress this fact per WP:CENSOR.--Darius (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed before ,once that, myself, Darius, and various other editors were involved in. We sought the opinion and guidence of an uninvovled editor with a a heavy invovlement in military history- Marcus British- he was very helpful. There are several things about the usage of the flag that leads its usage for nationalist/republican groups, one being that several used it previous to the states formation. It would be censorship to not use the flag in relation to organisations the use it (even if we dont personally agree with thier usage of it outside the offical use of it). If I get a chance I will look up the original discussions. Murry1975 (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

The Irish police and military operated against PIRA and were, in turn, attacked by PIRA. On what grounds are they not classed as belligerents?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

If anybody can explain why a military force and a police force who fought against PIRA shouldn't be described as belligerents, please do explain here. Otherwise I am going to reinstate those facts as soon as 1RR allows. Please do not ignore this discussion then start a revert war and/or frivolous AE action. Thank you.--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about the PIRA campaign, not about The Troubles. The PIRA systematically targeted British security forces, occasionally got involved in sectarian violence (against protestant militants and civilians) and rarely attacked Gardaí and Irish Army personnel (only 7 deaths in almost 30 years). Including agencies of the RoI as "belligerents" is given undue weight to a minority point of view.--Darius (talk) 03:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And the PIRA campaign involved attacks against Irish forces and Irish forces operations against PIRA. What's WP:UNDUE about mentioning that?--FergusM1970 (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

That those attacks on the RoI were far from being systematic, an overwhelming majority of the PIRA actions were directed against British forces, and the Republic was not involved in NI (at least from a military point of view).--Darius (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Did PIRA kill Irish security forces? Yes or no?--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And if your answer is "Yes," as it must be, why should those men be denied even the acknowledgement of their deaths by WP? I have worked with, like and respect members of both the Garda and the Irish Army, and I am disgusted at the idea of hiding their deaths to whitewash a political POV.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, just like the Germans killed Irish citizens in WWII (even volunteers on the battlefield) or bombed Dublin and this doesn't make Ireland a belligerent country.--Darius (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But the Garda Special Branch and Army Ranger Wing took part in operations against PIRA, including British-led operations. We're not talking about accidents here: the Irish authorities were actively involved in the effort to defeat PIRA, and suffered for it.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Irish casualties added to the infobox now, but like a third party, not along British security forces.--Darius (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not? They were working alongside British security forces. Garda had a Special Branch liaison with Met SB since 1973. Army Ranger Wing regularly train with 22SAS and exchange soldiers all the time. Irish security forces worked alongside British ones to defeat a common terrorist enemy, so why shouldn't they be honoured as having fallen in the line of duty instead of being relegated to "collateral damage"? They deserve better than that.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Because we have only seven RoI casualties. To include these seven along the British, we need reliable sources showing that they were killed in the course of combined operations, and that is not the case.--Darius (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do only combined operations count, then? The friendly forces casualty box is about those killed by PIRA. Were those Guards and that soldier killed by PIRA or not? If so, what exactly is your problem about acknowledging what they died for? I am fairly disgusted at your apparent disrespect for the Guard and Irish Army at this point, but I hope you can redeem yourself somehow.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is not a memorial website (see WP:MEMORIAL), I am not compelled to pay my respects to anybody, just to show to the readers what reliable sources say about a subject. And I never denied that the IRA killed them.--Darius (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair point. Anyway, on reflection, listing the Irish casualties as they are now seems like a reasonable solution.--FergusM1970 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Best regards.--Darius (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of civilians killed by British forces

Civilians killed by British forces are a little off-topic on this page, which deals exclusively with the PIRA campaign. I think it should be removed as soon as possible.--Darius (talk) 04:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that, as those deaths were a consequence of the PIRA campaign even if they weren't PIRA's fault. Obviously I don't think anyone's going to argue that they would have happened if the campaign hadn't. Are you suggesting that we only list the people killed by PIRA? We can discuss that of course, but it seems kind of limited.--FergusM1970 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We should include only those killed by the PIRA. If not, someone could list people killed by the loyalist on the basis that this was a consequence of the PIRA actions, or even the nine British soldiers arrested by the Gardaí/Irish Army on the border in 1976 and 1986.--Darius (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Could someone explain?

What a 2009 poll that doesn't even mention the IRA has to do with this article, and how its inclusion is even remotely justified per WP:NOR? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, possibly because it states the percentage of the NI population who want a united Ireland, and therefore places PIRA's campaign to achieve that in context?--FergusM1970^{Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy, or help dispute resolution.} 20:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. For starters look at the date of the poll, then read the no original research policy I linked to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The use of that poll is obvious original research, as the J. Bowyer Bell source cited doesn't support the inclusion of "specifically". Please don't edit war to push your preferred version through after being reverted, use this talk page.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read the links that have been provided a number of times to you, such as WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:RS. I have the book! Please don't misrepresent sources its really unhelpful. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The statement should be removed immediately from the lede per WP:SYN, not only because the source doesn't make any mention of the Provisionals, but also because the campaign of the PIRA to obtain unity was aimed at the British government, not at the public opinion, let alone public opinion in NI; this is well documented. Other issue is WP:UNDUE, since the editor cited just a single poll, and anybody could use other surveys, like the one carried out by the Belfast Telegraph in 2010, when more than 40% of Protestants expressed their belief that there will be a United Ireland in 20 years. Not to mention references to cross-border institutions, or the political influence of the Republic since the 1985 and 1998 treaties in some reserved matters concerning the North. All of this could be seen by some people as a measure of PIRA's success, rather than "placing PIRA campaign to achieve a United Ireland in context".--Darius (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the survey cited by the editor (see here) actually shows that 40% of the Catholic population in NI supports a United Ireland against 39% for the current power-sharing within the UK.--Darius (talk) 00:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet with all the BBC survey last month determined that Roman Catholics have overwhelmingly voted to stay in the Union because of the recentl collapse of the ROI's banking system. I can't remember the exact figures so I won't quote any but it does go to show that you can find figures anywhere to support your contention. Just keep pushing it down everyone's throat until your POV is accepted. That's how Wikipedia works - apparantly, by the results I've seen anyway! Of course I'm always willing to give things another chance. *smile* SonofSetanta (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)